Creationist stakes $10,000 on contest between Bible and evolution

ACaliforniacreationist is offering a $10,000 challenge to anyone who can prove in front of a judge that science contradicts the literal interpretation of the book of Genesis.

Dr Joseph Mastropaolo, who says he has set up the contest, the Literal Genesis Trial, in the hope of improving the quality of arguments between creationists and evolutionists, has pledged to put $10,000 of his own money into an escrow account before the debate. His competitor would be expected to do the same. The winner would take the $20,000 balance.

The argument would not be made in a formal court, but under an alternative dispute resolution model known as a minitrial. Mastropaolo said he would present the argument in favor of a literal interpretation of the creation story once he had found a willing scientist to argue that a non-literal interpretation of Genesis is more scientific.

"They [evolutionists] are not stupid people, they are bright, but they are bright enough to know there is no scientific evidence they can give in a minitrial," Mastropaolo said.

A minitrial differs from a regular trial because it does not need to be held in a courthouse and does not require the presence of traditional court figures. Mastropaolo plans to have a bailiff and court reporter in attendance, along with the judge. Contest rules state that evidence must be scientific, which means it is "objective, valid, reliable and calibrated".

Mastropaolo believes thatevolutioncannot be proved scientifically. "It turns out that there is nothing in the universe [that] is evolving, everything is devolving, everything is going in the opposite direction," he said.

I would want to read the fine print. He may be right about evolution. I don't think evolution can be proven in the way relativity can, but it's by far the best theory going. But as far as contradicting the biblical account of genesis that should be easy, unless the judge has a fundamentalist bias.

Yeah, who is the judge and what is the 'literal' creationist argument being presented. If he wants to claim that 'day' doesn't 'literally' mean day in the 6 day version of creation then he's already slid out from part of the rock.

Poor Adam and Eve, no lint collectors or tooth fairies for them. I wonder how "old" they were when they were made. This is way cooler:

Greek First Humans

This illustration for The Symposium by Plato (428–347 B.C.), depicts a first human as described by the playwright Aristophanes in the text: "The primeval man was round, his back and sides forming a circle; and he had four hands and four feet, one head with two faces. . . . He could walk upright as men now do." After these humans rebelled against the gods, as Zeus punished them by slicing them in two. Ever since, according to Aristophanes, humans have been driven by love into trying to reunite with their missing half to make a perfect whole.

It's called a sucker bet. ANY time someone approaches you to try to get you to bet on something, you're a sucker if you take the bet. The more certain you are that you will win, the more certain it is that you will lose.

I'd be VERY surprised if anyone accepted the bet after reading the fine print. but you never know. There's a sucker born every minute.

The real objective is propaganda. "See. Evolution is FALSE! No one in the world is willing to try proving that it's true. And, of course we KNOW Genesis is true because it's the word of God"